I think we agree on many points, but not generally on the meaning of the profound path. However, that's normal because there is no real controversy concerning the method practices, only concerning the meaning of ultimate truth.

Just on one of your method practices the "gyalpo worship" is a bit of a
road block being full of controversy.

'

Once again, how is this a constructive contribution to the subject of this thread?

It was actually a very specific question: How to Gelugpas deal with Mipham? His arguments are very specific, I assume their responses are also very specific.

In my experience, the Gelug school doesn't deal with Mipham. He simply isn't studied at an institutional level.

For individuals, some try to ignore, some try to incorporate, some try to refute, some conclude Tsongkhapa's position was completely wrong and start studying Dzogchen or whatever. The Geshes I study with, if asked say that they haven't studied it and so can't give an opinion - at most, they say it's contrary to Tsongkhapa and Gelug explanations. Our Geshe from Sera Je is far more concerned with refuting particular points of explanation that differentiate Sera Je from Sera Mey or Drepung Loseling and Drepung Gomang.

Personally, I rely on His Holiness the Dalai Lama whose understanding of both Gelug and non-Gelug views and explanations of emptiness is far superior to mine. In Union of the Old and New Translation Schools which can be found in Kindness, Clarity and Insight, His Holiness argues that the four Tibetan schools are Prasangika and that any differences are in presentation, explanation, and use of terminology, not in realisation. Again, some people share this view, some think it is mistaken, some think it is just politically expedient for His Holiness who since 1959 has been trying to hold together a scattered disaspora and needs to foster cooperation and a "united religious front".

Last edited by Bristollad on Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

Once again, how is this a constructive contribution to the subject of this thread?

This:

However, that's normal because there is no real controversy concerning the method practices, only concerning the meaning of ultimate truth.

You chose to link the theory under discussion with the actual practices you and others follow as 'method'.

So, yes, we can tie this to the topic of the thread, since perversion of texts would render arguments based upon them as more questionable. I note one of the book authors has re-ordained after being exposed for sexual predation..........a fine source for you to quote, I'm sure. The books quoted fund the cult.

Back in 2011 you were actually saying that it was wrong to quote scripture directly as it was open to misinterpretation - so much better, I'm sure, to ensure you all quote from the one restricted and perverted source in case you stray or discover that practices were rewritten to include a 'method' HHDL has specifically deemed harmful and was never present in the original scriptures.
So, quote away.......but be mindful (I know you all now love that term) that people know the context and that contrary to your assertion, 'method' does in fact differ greatly (in the context of the books you quote) from legitimate Vajrayana.

And no, it isn't Freesangha here.......as you once remarked. No more to say.

You chose to link the theory under discussion with the actual practices you and others follow as 'method'.

I was talking about the teachings on faith, rebirth, karma, love, compassion, bodhichitta, concentration, etc - in other words, the hidden meaning of Buddha's Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. I wasn't talking about particular ritual practices which vary from tradition to tradition.

Your choosing to focus on a particular issue that you have a problem with is your own sectarian intolerance. It's also against the ToS of this site.

You chose to link the theory under discussion with the actual practices you and others follow as 'method'.

I was talking about the teachings on faith, rebirth, karma, love, compassion, bodhichitta, concentration, etc - in other words, the hidden meaning of Buddha's Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. I wasn't talking about particular ritual practices which vary from tradition to tradition.

Your choosing to focus on a particular issue that you have a problem with is your own sectarian intolerance. It's also against the ToS of this site.

Really? Is it sectarian to criticise a totally sectarian movement? So whose books are you quoting from? I haven't mentioned any organisation. Your phrases are identical to those I know well from certain books which I personally would ban from use, but so far nothing is against ToS..........unless of course we manage to change ToS.

It was actually a very specific question: How to Gelugpas deal with Mipham? His arguments are very specific, I assume their responses are also very specific.

In my experience, the Gelug school doesn't deal with Mipham. He simply isn't studied at an institutional level.

For individuals, some try to ignore, some try to incorporate, some try to refute, some conclude Tsongkhapa's position was completely wrong and start studying Dzogchen or whatever. The Geshes I study with, if asked say that they haven't studied it and so can't give an opinion - at most, they say it's contrary to Tsongkhapa and Gelug explanations. Our Geshe from Sera Je is far more concerned with refuting particular points of explanation that differentiate Sera Je from Sera Mey or Drepung Loseling and Drepung Gomang.

Thanks for this, I also haven't come across Mipham or Gorampa's criticisms of Je Tsongkhapa but it would be interesting to know what they are and to attempt to formulate a refutation in the same way that the Prasangika view is arrived at by understanding what is flawed in the understandings of the lower schools. Please note I'm not saying that these refutations are incorrect; I'm not familiar with them so I cannot say one way or the other.

It was actually a very specific question: How to Gelugpas deal with Mipham? His arguments are very specific, I assume their responses are also very specific.

In my experience, the Gelug school doesn't deal with Mipham. He simply isn't studied at an institutional level.

For individuals, some try to ignore, some try to incorporate, some try to refute, some conclude Tsongkhapa's position was completely wrong and start studying Dzogchen or whatever. The Geshes I study with, if asked say that they haven't studied it and so can't give an opinion - at most, they say it's contrary to Tsongkhapa and Gelug explanations. Our Geshe from Sera Je is far more concerned with refuting particular points of explanation that differentiate Sera Je from Sera Mey or Drepung Loseling and Drepung Gomang.

Thanks for this, I also haven't come across Mipham or Gorampa's criticisms of Je Tsongkhapa but it would be interesting to know what they are and to attempt to formulate a refutation in the same way that the Prasangika view is arrived at by understanding what is flawed in the understandings of the lower schools. Please note I'm not saying that these refutations are incorrect; I'm not familiar with them so I cannot say one way or the other.

Thanks, I saw this book and bought it some time ago but didn't find it to be a very user friendly format as the text is in Tibetan followed by english translation, followed by more Tibetan, followed by more english translation...etc. which makes following it somewhat disjointed. I also found the language used in the english translation wasn't very clear either, and it's interspersed with Tibetan terminology as well.

I found The Two Truths Debate to be more accessible and modern. What's your view of that if you've read it?

I found The Two Truths Debate to be more accessible and modern. What's your view of that if you've read it?

Sonam Thakchoe does not really make an effort to understand Gorampa, he is mostly interested in making an apology for Lama Tsongkhapa's views.

Having the word "debate" in the title is even a stretch.

Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

Personally, I rely on His Holiness the Dalai Lama whose understanding of both Gelug and non-Gelug views and explanations of emptiness is far superior to mine. In Union of the Old and New Translation Schools which can be found in Kindness, Clarity and Insight, His Holiness argues that the four Tibetan schools are Prasangika and that any differences are in presentation, explanation, and use of terminology, not in realisation. Again, some people share this view, some think it is mistaken, some think it is just politically expedient for His Holiness who since 1959 has been trying to hold together a scattered disaspora and needs to foster cooperation and a "united religious front".

I’ve just read through this thread. My reaction to it is that when this recurring debate pops up, it would be good if other knowledgeable Gelugpa practitioners would join in more. I am not knowledgeable enough to judge or contribute, except from the perspective of someone who is in the earliest stages of a Dzogchen practice made possible, I think, by 10 years of Gelug-oriented instruction and practice.

Tsongkhapafan’s position should be addressed by people who understand the arguments from both sides, not by people who categorical dismiss his right to speak by virtue of his association. Personally I am not qualified to say whether his position is fairly representational of Gelug –- as presentated by the FMPT –- or not, but it certainly sounds like what I have been taught. On the other side, Malcolm and Cone provide very valuable, and very subtle, distinctions which I think are invaluable for anyone who is sympathetic to Tsongkhapa’s teachings.

Isn’t this argument one of perspective? Gelugpas take the perspective of ordinary beings for whom conventional appearances are all too real. The objective of Tsongkhapa’s lam rim is to walk an ordinary being, step by step, to the door of liberation; a path leading toward the result. The Dzogchen perspective is from the other side of that door, beckoning; taking the result into the path.

The Gelug path is useful for conventional people in a conventional context. It allows us to open a small tear in the fabric of ignorance. Once that tear is large enough, the Mahamudra/Vajrayana/Dzogchen view offers a more efficient method.

In my Dzogchen readings I’ve read that whoever has the ears to hear Dzogchen and the will to practice it necessarily belongs there. That “belonging” is a function of prior preparation, in this and past lives. While the concepts should be debated for clarity, the means of such preparation should not be disparaged. Some of us need it.

We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

Tsongkhapafan’s position should be addressed by people who understand the arguments from both sides, not by people who categorical dismiss his right to speak by virtue of his association.

Everyone has permission to write posts, but some members need their posts monitoring by Mods before they are published, and some are, of course, deleted or edited. Some years ago, as a Mod, I deleted many which referenced material banned under ToS. Since then, references have been more oblique.

However, we need to clarify if quoting from certain sources is acceptable, whether it is in accordance with some Gelug teachings or not. Some Gelugs still hold views HHDL deplores.

But maybe I am imputing from a mere appearance to mind and have got me valid cognisers in a tizz.

Tsongkhapafan’s position should be addressed by people who understand the arguments from both sides, not by people who categorical dismiss his right to speak by virtue of his association.

Everyone has permission to write posts, but some members need their posts monitoring by Mods before they are published, and some are, of course, deleted or edited. Some years ago, as a Mod, I deleted many which referenced material banned under ToS. Since then, references have been more oblique.

However, we need to clarify if quoting from certain sources is acceptable, whether it is in accordance with some Gelug teachings or not. Some Gelugs still hold views HHDL deplores.

But maybe I am imputing from a mere appearance to mind and have got me valid cognisers in a tizz.

Fair enough, and thanks for the deeper explanation by PM.

The main thrust of my post, though, was mainly to encourage the more knowledgeable Gelugpas (or even Gelug sympathizers) on DW to balance Tsongkhapafan's lone defense of a valid practice path. I respect Malcolm and Cone's arguments, but I don't think they invalidate the Gelug path.

We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

Tsongkhapafan’s position should be addressed by people who understand the arguments from both sides, not by people who categorical dismiss his right to speak by virtue of his association.

Everyone has permission to write posts, but some members need their posts monitoring by Mods before they are published, and some are, of course, deleted or edited. Some years ago, as a Mod, I deleted many which referenced material banned under ToS. Since then, references have been more oblique.

However, we need to clarify if quoting from certain sources is acceptable, whether it is in accordance with some Gelug teachings or not. Some Gelugs still hold views HHDL deplores.

But maybe I am imputing from a mere appearance to mind and have got me valid cognisers in a tizz.

Fair enough, and thanks for the deeper explanation by PM.

The main thrust of my post, though, was mainly to encourage the more knowledgeable Gelugpas (or even Gelug sympathizers) on DW to balance Tsongkhapafan's lone defense of a valid practice path. I respect Malcolm and Cone's arguments, but I don't think they invalidate the Gelug path.

As an individual who spent many years practicing in Gelug sanghas I can offer the support that there is nothing invalid about the Gelug path.
There is a unique interpretation of Madhyamika, and a unique approach to practice but those things are in no way representative of the isolationism and sectarianism that has plagued the lineage for the past 2 centuries.
Distinguishing between the political quagmire that people like Pabonkha put modern Gelugpas in and the dharma itself is very important.

Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.